Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC. vs Matthew P. Petrovic

Posted on July 1, 2025 by [email protected]

Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H019-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-07-01
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC	Counsel	Danny M. Ford, Esq.
Respondent	Matthew P. Petrovic	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Outcome Summary

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the Respondent's request for rehearing of the underlying ALJ Decision.

Why this result: The Commissioner found grounds (errors of law and arbitrary decision) sufficient to grant the Respondent's motion for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Rehearing Request: Errors of Law and Arbitrary Decision

Respondent Matthew Petrovic successfully requested rehearing of the original ALJ decision, alleging errors of law, improper evidence rejection, procedural irregularities, and that the findings were arbitrary or capricious regarding alleged HOA enforcement violations (landscape, paint, walkway denial).

Orders: The Commissioner granted the rehearing request based on grounds of error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law, and that the findings or decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Rehearing, Procedural Error, Arbitrary Decision, Selective Enforcement

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Sharon M. Maiden v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Posted on June 2, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H030-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-06-02
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Sharon Maiden	Counsel	—
Respondent	Val Vista Lakes Community Association	Counsel	Josh Bolen, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Association’s Bylaws
Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's petition is denied, as she failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Open Meeting Law) or selectively enforced Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Bylaws regarding term limits.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof on both issues. The closed board meeting was authorized for discussing legal advice, and the HOA's interpretation of the term limit provision aligned with the amendment's purpose to prevent Board members from serving long terms.

Key Issues & Findings

Selective enforcement of Bylaws regarding term limits.

Petitioner alleged Respondent selectively enforced the 2021 Bylaws amendment concerning term limits by retroactively applying the two-term limit to disqualify her 2024 candidacy.

Orders: Petition denied. Petitioner failed to establish a violation of Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Bylaws.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373 (2006)
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Failure to hold an open meeting to decide candidacy disqualification.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated open meeting laws by holding a closed executive session vote on October 11, 2024, to disqualify her candidacy.

Orders: Petition denied. Petitioner failed to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Bylaws, Term Limits, Open Meeting Law, Selective Enforcement, ADR

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at page 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Arpaio v. Steinle, 201 Ariz. 353, 355 ¶ 5, 35 P.3d 114, 116 (App. 2001)
Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373 (2006)
Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1272425.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:02 (57.7 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1272426.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:06 (49.7 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1282372.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:12 (60.5 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1282375.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:15 (9.1 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1284492.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:19 (56.1 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1288176.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:23 (60.1 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1288177.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:27 (7.4 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1293820.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:31 (41.1 KB)

25F-H030-REL Decision – 1313134.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:17:35 (114.8 KB)

Briefing Doc – 25F-H030-REL

Administrative Hearing Briefing:Maiden v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the administrative hearing case Sharon M. Maiden v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association (No. 25F-H030-REL), adjudicated by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. The petitioner, Sharon Maiden, a former board member, alleged that the association selectively enforced its bylaws to disqualify her from running for the board and violated Arizona’s open meeting laws by making this decision in a closed executive session.

The central conflict revolved around the interpretation of a 2021 bylaw amendment that shortened board member term limits. The petitioner argued for a prospective application, which would reset the term-limit clock for sitting board members, while the respondent association argued for an interpretation that counted prior service.

On June 2, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson issued a decision denying the petition in its entirety. The judge concluded that the association’s board acted within the bounds of Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)) by holding a closed session to consider legal advice. Furthermore, the judge found that the petitioner failed to prove a bylaw violation, reasoning that the association’s interpretation was consistent with the membership’s clear intent to shorten, not lengthen, the potential tenure of board members.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

Case Name

Sharon M. Maiden v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Case Number

25F-H030-REL

Tribunal

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)

Petitioner

Sharon M. Maiden

Respondent

Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Respondent’s Counsel

Josh Bolen, Esq. (CHDB Law LLP)

Presiding Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson

Petition Allegations

The petition, filed by Sharon Maiden on December 15, 2024, asserted two primary violations by the Val Vista Lakes Community Association:

1. Selective Enforcement of Bylaws: An alleged violation of Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Association’s Bylaws, stemming from the board’s decision to disqualify the petitioner from running for a board position in 2024 based on its interpretation of term limits.

2. Open Meeting Law Violation: An alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(A), contending that the board failed to hold an open meeting when it made the binding decision to disqualify her candidacy.

Initially filed as a single-issue petition for which a $500 fee was paid, the OAH ordered on March 12, 2025, that the petitioner must either pay an additional $500 to pursue both issues or select one to proceed with at the hearing.

——————————————————————————–

Procedural History

• January 27, 2025: The Arizona Department of Real Estate refers the petition to the OAH for an administrative hearing.

• February 4, 2025: Respondent files a Motion to Strike the Petition, arguing the petitioner improperly disclosed attorney-client privileged communications.

• February 11, 2025: Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn denies the Motion to Strike. The hearing is continued to March 26, 2025.

• March 26, 2025: The first day of the evidentiary hearing is conducted.

• April 11, 2025: A further hearing is conducted. At its conclusion, the record is held open to allow for post-hearing briefing.

• May 13, 2025: The post-hearing briefing period concludes, and the record is closed.

• June 2, 2025: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues the final decision, denying the petition.

Central Dispute: Interpretation of Bylaw Term Limits

The core of the dispute was the interpretation of Article IV, Section 2 of the association’s bylaws, which was amended in 2021. The amendment’s purpose, as testified by multiple witnesses, was to shorten the length of time directors could serve on the board.

Evolution of the Bylaw

• 2012 Bylaws: Introduced term limits for the first time, establishing a maximum of three consecutive two-year terms (six years total), followed by a required one-year break.

• 2021 Bylaws: The membership approved a rewrite that reduced term limits to two consecutive elected two-year terms (four years total), followed by a required two-year break.

Both versions of the bylaw contained the following critical sentence: “Commencing with the first Annual Meeting after the adoption of these Amended and Restated Bylaws, Directors will be subject to term limits as follows.” The meaning of this sentence became the primary point of contention.

Competing Interpretations

Position

Argument Summary

Key Evidence and Testimony

Petitioner’s Position (Prospective Application)

The “Commencing with…” language resets the clock. Terms served before the 2021 amendment should not count toward the new, shorter limits. The association’s sudden shift to a retroactive interpretation was selective and targeted.

William Sutell (Former President): Testified the intent was to “reset the clock for everybody.” His 2022 newsletter stating his “term limit of four years is up” was “ineloquent” and meant to express he was tired of serving.
Douglas Keats (Former Board Member): Stated the intent of the rewrite was to “Go forward.”
Historical Precedent: The association, based on a 2016 legal opinion from Goodman Law Group, had allowed Director Cheryl McCoy to serve nine consecutive years despite the 2012 bylaw’s six-year limit.
Legal Opinions: An opinion from Krupnik & Speas in November 2023 stated the 2021 bylaws were prospective, not retroactive.

Respondent’s Position (Prior Service Counts)

The clear intent of the membership and the bylaw committee was to shorten terms. The petitioner’s interpretation creates a loophole allowing sitting board members to serve for 8 or more years, directly contradicting the amendment’s purpose.

Jill Brown (Bylaw Committee Chair): Testified the committee’s intent was to apply the new limits to sitting directors and there was no discussion of “grandfathering” anyone.
Bryan Patterson (Current President): Testified that the membership voted for two two-year terms “and that’s it.”
Sutell’s 2022 Newsletter: Presented as a direct admission from the former president that the four-year limit applied to him based on his service from 2018-2022.
Drafting Logic: The “Commencing with…” clause is a standard legal provision to prevent a new rule from invalidating a board member’s current term, not to erase their entire service history.

Central Dispute: Alleged Open Meeting Law Violation

The second major issue concerned the board’s decision-making process. On October 11, 2024, the board held a closed executive session where it voted 5-4 to accept the legal opinion of its counsel (CHDB Law) and disqualify Ms. Maiden from the ballot.

Competing Arguments

Position

Argument Summary

Key Evidence and Testimony

Petitioner’s Argument (Violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A))

The vote to disqualify a candidate was a final, binding decision that must be made in an open meeting. The closed session was not justified under the narrow exceptions of the statute.

Improper Notice: The meeting notice cited the incorrect statute (for condominiums, not planned communities) and was not properly distributed to all board members.
Lack of Statutory Justification: No attorney was present at the meeting, and there was no pending litigation at that specific moment. The agenda item was to “accept opinion,” not simply “receive advice.”

Respondent’s Argument (Compliance with Law)

The executive session was permissible under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1), which allows closed meetings for the “consideration of… Legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association” and matters concerning “pending or contemplated litigation.”

Contemplated Litigation: Testimony indicated that Ms. Maiden had threatened to file an ADR complaint or lawsuit.
Consideration of Legal Advice: The board was reviewing three separate legal opinions regarding Ms. Maiden’s eligibility.
Petitioner’s Participation: Ms. Maiden was present at the meeting, participated in the vote, and did not object to the session being held in private at that time.

——————————————————————————–

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Rationale

The ALJ denied Ms. Maiden’s petition on both counts, finding that she failed to meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Ruling on the Open Meeting Law

The ALJ concluded that the board did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(A).

• Key Rationale: The evidence demonstrated that the board met in executive session “to consider a legal opinion regarding the 2021 Amendment.” This action falls squarely within the statutory exception outlined in A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1).

• On Disclosure: The statute permits, but does not require, the board to disclose information from such a session after a “final resolution.” As the matter was still being litigated, no final resolution had been reached.

Ruling on the Bylaw Violation

The ALJ concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent violated Article IV of its bylaws.

• Key Rationale: The judge focused on the underlying purpose of the 2021 amendment, which testimony from both sides confirmed was to “prevent Board members from serving for long periods of time.”

• Rejection of Petitioner’s Interpretation: The decision noted that the petitioner, along with her witnesses, admitted that their interpretation “would have allowed the then-sitting Board Members the right to serve 6, 8, and potentially 10-year term limits.” The ALJ found this outcome would be contrary to the amendment’s purpose.

• Jurisdictional Note: The decision explicitly stated that the “issue of selective enforcement is not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.” The ruling was based on the interpretation of the bylaw’s text and intent, not on whether it was applied unevenly.

Final Order

“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition is denied because she has not established that Respondent’s Board violated A.R.S. § 33-1804 or Article IV, Sections 2 and 3 of the Bylaws.”

Study Guide – 25F-H030-REL

Administrative Hearing Study Guide: Maiden v. Val Vista Lakes Community Association

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each of the following questions in 2-3 sentences, based on the provided source context.

1. What were the two primary legal issues Sharon Maiden raised in her petition against the Val Vista Lakes Community Association?

2. What was the key phrase in the 2021 bylaws that became the central point of interpretive conflict regarding term limits?

3. According to the hearing testimony, what were the main purposes of the 2021 bylaw committee’s rewrite of the association’s bylaws?

4. Explain the Respondent’s justification for holding a closed executive session on October 11, 2024, to decide on Sharon Maiden’s eligibility.

5. How did the legal opinions from the Goodman Law Group (Ashley Turner) and Krupnik & Spees (Adrien Speed) support the Petitioner’s case?

6. Describe the key piece of evidence the Respondent used involving former board president William (Bill) Sutell to argue against a prospective interpretation of the term limits.

7. What decision did the Board of Directors make during the October 11, 2024, executive session, and what was the final vote count?

8. What procedural issue did Petitioner Douglas Keats identify with the notice for the October 11, 2024, executive session?

9. According to witness Jill Brown, what was the general intent of the bylaw committee and community members regarding the length of board service?

10. What were the final conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge in the June 2, 2025, decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. Petitioner Sharon Maiden alleged that the Respondent (1) selectively enforced the Bylaws in violation of Article IV, Sections 2 and 3, and (2) failed to hold an open meeting when it decided to disqualify her from running for the Board, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 33-1804(A).

2. The central point of conflict was the phrase in Article IV, Section 2: “Commencing with the first Annual Meeting after the adoption of these Amended and Restated Bylaws, Directors will be subject to term limits…” The Petitioner argued this indicated a prospective “reset,” while the Respondent argued it did not erase prior service.

3. Testimony from witnesses like Douglas Keats and William Sutell indicated the rewrite was intended to address multiple issues, not just term limits. Key purposes included establishing secret ballots, eliminating the nominating committee which was seen as counter to the CCNRs, and creating a formal procedure for replacing board members based on vote counts rather than board appointments.

4. The Respondent justified the closed session under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)(1), which allows for closed meetings to consider legal advice from an attorney. The board was discussing three separate legal opinions regarding Ms. Maiden’s eligibility and also noted that Ms. Maiden had contemplated legal action against the association.

5. The Petitioner argued that these opinions demonstrated a consistent historical interpretation by the association’s own general counsels. Both opinions stated that the term limit language in the 2012 and 2021 bylaws should be interpreted prospectively, meaning terms served prior to the adoption of the new bylaws did not count toward the new limits.

6. The Respondent heavily relied on a November 2022 newsletter message from then-president Bill Sutell. In it, Mr. Sutell stated, “This will be my last president’s message to the community as my term limit of four years is up,” which the Respondent argued was an admission that the term limits were not reset by the 2021 bylaw amendment.

7. The Board of Directors voted to accept the opinion of CHDB Law LLP regarding term limits, which effectively disqualified Sharon Maiden from running in the 2024 election. The motion passed with a vote of 5 to 4.

8. Douglas Keats testified that the email notice for the executive session was not sent to him or two other board members (Christine Rucker and Curtis Weile) at their correct addresses, while it was sent to a former board member. He also noted the notice cited an incorrect statute (A.R.S. § 33-1248 for condominiums) instead of the one for planned communities.

9. Jill Brown, who chaired the bylaw committee, testified that the general consensus of the committee and community members was that they did not want directors serving for long periods. The intent was to shorten the available terms to encourage turnover and prevent directors from serving for “excessive amounts of time.”

10. The Administrative Law Judge denied Sharon Maiden’s petition. The Judge concluded that the Respondent did not violate A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) because the closed meeting to consider legal advice was permissible. Furthermore, the Judge found Maiden failed to prove a violation of the bylaws, stating the purpose of the 2021 amendment was to prevent long service periods, and deemed the issue of selective enforcement to be outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Construct detailed responses to the following prompts, synthesizing evidence and arguments from across the source documents. Do not provide answers.

1. Analyze the legal arguments presented by both the Petitioner and Respondent regarding the proper interpretation of A.R.S. § 33-1804 (Arizona’s open meeting law). Discuss the specific actions taken by the board and how each party framed those actions in the context of the statute’s exceptions for closed sessions.

2. Compare and contrast the testimonies of William Sutell and Douglas Keats with that of Jill Brown. How did their recollections and interpretations of the bylaw committee’s intent differ, particularly concerning whether the new term limits should apply prospectively or retroactively to sitting board members?

3. Trace the evolution of the Val Vista Lakes Community Association’s bylaws regarding term limits from 2012 to 2021. Evaluate the arguments concerning “long-standing practice” and “selective enforcement,” referencing the specific cases of board members Cheryl McCoy, William Sutell, and Sharon Maiden.

4. Examine the role of conflicting legal advice in this dispute. Discuss the different opinions offered by the Goodman Law Group, Krupnik & Spees, and CHDB Law LLP, and analyze how the Board of Directors chose to navigate these contradictory recommendations.

5. The Administrative Law Judge’s final decision states that the “issue of selective enforcement is not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.” Based on the testimony and arguments presented, construct an argument that Sharon Maiden might have made regarding selective enforcement, and explain why the Respondent would have refuted it.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms and Entities

Term / Entity

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings. In this case, Kay A. Abramsohn and Velva Moses-Thompson served as ALJs.

Arizona Department of Real Estate (Department)

The state agency authorized to receive and decide on petitions from members of homeowners’ associations. It referred this case to the OAH.

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)

The codified laws of the state of Arizona. Key statutes in this case include § 33-1804(A) and § 32-2199.

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

The Arizona statute concerning open meeting laws for planned community associations. It mandates that meetings be open to members but provides specific, limited exceptions for closed (executive) sessions, such as to discuss legal advice.

Bolen, Josh

An attorney with CHDB Law LLP who served as counsel for the Respondent, Val Vista Lakes Community Association.

Brown, Jill

A witness for the Respondent. She served as the chair of the 2021 bylaw committee and was a current board member at the time of the hearing.

Bylaw Committee

A committee established by the board in 2021 to review and recommend changes to the association’s bylaws. Its members included Jill Brown, William Sutell, and Douglas Keats.

Carpenter Hazelwood (CHDB LAW LLP)

The law firm that represented the Respondent. The Petitioner filed an unsuccessful motion to disqualify the firm.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. The governing documents for the community. The 2021 bylaw committee sought to address bylaw provisions that were counter to the CCNRs, such as the nominating committee.

Commencing with…

The key phrase in Article IV, Section 2 of the bylaws that was central to the dispute. The Petitioner argued it signaled a prospective application of term limits, while the Respondent disagreed.

Executive Session

A closed meeting of the Board of Directors, permitted under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) for specific purposes, such as discussing legal advice or pending litigation.

Keats, Douglas

A witness for the Petitioner. He was a former board member who served as secretary of the 2021 bylaw committee.

Maiden, Sharon M.

The Petitioner in the case, a homeowner in Val Vista Lakes and a former member of its Board of Directors who was disqualified from running for a third consecutive term.

Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH / Tribunal)

The independent state agency that conducted the administrative hearing for this case after referral from the Department of Real Estate.

Patterson, Bryan

A witness for the Respondent. He was the HOA President at the time of the hearing and was Vice President when the vote to disqualify the Petitioner occurred.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, Sharon M. Maiden.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in this administrative hearing, defined as evidence that is more likely true than not. The ALJ found the Petitioner failed to meet this burden.

Prospective Interpretation

The argument that a new rule or law applies only “going forward” from its effective date and does not consider service or actions that occurred prior to that date. This was the Petitioner’s central argument.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, Val Vista Lakes Community Association.

Retroactive Interpretation

The argument that a new rule or law applies to past events, meaning prior service on the board would count against the newly established term limits. This was the Respondent’s position.

Sutell, William (Bill)

A witness for the Petitioner. He is an attorney, a former board president, and served on the 2021 bylaw committee.

Val Vista Lakes Community Association

The Respondent in the case; a homeowners’ association (HOA) in Gilbert, Arizona.

Blog Post – 25F-H030-REL

5 Surprising Lessons from an HOA War Over a Single Sentence

Introduction: The Butterfly Effect of Bylaws

For many homeowners, the rules set by their homeowners’ association (HOA) can feel arbitrary, buried in dense legal documents. But the precise wording of those governing documents has massive, unforeseen consequences—a legal butterfly effect where a minor change creates a major storm. This dynamic was on full display in the case of Sharon Maiden vs. Val Vista Lakes Community Association, where one seemingly simple sentence sparked a complex, year-long legal dispute.

The case offers a masterclass in the tension between the technical reading of a text versus its clear, underlying intent. It provides surprising insights into law, community governance, and human nature. Here are five key lessons from this HOA war over a single sentence.

——————————————————————————–

1. One Sentence, Two Meanings, and a Mountain of Legal Bills

A 2021 bylaw amendment, designed to reduce board member term limits, lit the fuse for the central conflict. The entire dispute hinged on the interpretation of one introductory phrase, demonstrating just how much can ride on a few words.

The critical sentence from Article IV, Section 2 of the 2021 Bylaws reads:

“Commencing with the first Annual Meeting after the adoption of these Amended and Restated Bylaws, Directors will be subject to term limits as follows.”

This single sentence gave rise to two completely opposite interpretations:

• The “Reset” Theory (Petitioner’s view): Proponents argued this language meant the term limit clock reset for all sitting board members. Under this view, their prior years of service didn’t count toward the new, shorter limit. This interpretation seemed solid, even supported by a formal legal opinion from the association’s previous general counsel, attorney Adrien Spees.

• The “Look-Back” Theory (Respondent’s view): The association argued the phrase was merely a legal formality to prevent sitting members from being disqualified mid-term. They contended that a board member’s prior service absolutely still counted toward the new limit.

The fact that this ambiguity was enough to fuel a formal administrative hearing shows the high stakes of precise legal drafting. What’s truly surprising is how a standard legal phrase like “Commencing with…” could be interpreted so diametrically as to potentially erase years of board service from the term-limit calculation.

2. The Architect of the Rule Became Its Most Complicated Case

One of the most fascinating aspects of the case involved the testimony of Bill Sutell, the former Board President. Mr. Sutell was in charge when the 2021 bylaw changes were drafted and approved, and he testified in support of the “reset” theory, which would have allowed him and other members to serve longer.

However, the strongest piece of evidence used against his position came from his own hand. In a 2022 newsletter to the community, Mr. Sutell had written:

“This will be my last president’s message to the community as my term limit of four years is up.”

When questioned, he explained the statement was “ineloquent.” He testified he was tired and had a “self-imposed term limit” because he “didn’t want to be a career board member.” This created a paradox where the rule’s architect argued for one interpretation in court while his own public statement seemed to support the opposing view. As community governance analysts, we see a crucial lesson here: for HOA volunteers, informal communications like a newsletter can be scrutinized with the same intensity as a legal document—a trap many well-meaning leaders are unprepared for.

3. Why a “Correct” Interpretation Can Still Be Wrong

The petitioner’s side came to the hearing with what seemed like very strong evidence. They had testimony about the bylaw committee’s intent and presented a formal legal opinion from attorney Adrien Spees that appeared to settle the matter:

“This amendment is prospective not retroactive. The Term limits only apply to directors elected beginning the first annual meeting following November 9th, 2021. Thus, a director who has served for several years before November 9th, 2021 will still be eligible to serve two consecutive terms after November 9th, 2021.”

This seems clear-cut. However, the argument that ultimately won focused not on what the words said, but on what they would do. The fatal blow to the “reset” theory came not from the respondent’s lawyers, but from the petitioner’s own key witnesses. During testimony, both Sutell and another witness, Douglas Keats, admitted that their interpretation would create a massive loophole, allowing sitting board members “the right to serve 6, 8, and potentially 10-year term limits.” This admission was critical. The Administrative Law Judge rejected an interpretation—even one supported by a legal opinion—because it led to an “absurd result” that directly contradicted the stated purpose of the rule, which was to shorten term limits, not accidentally lengthen them for a select few.

4. The Peril of a Closed-Door Meeting

The second major issue was the claim that the board violated Arizona’s open meeting laws. The vote to disqualify Sharon Maiden from the 2024 ballot was not taken in public. Instead, it happened during a closed executive session while she, a sitting board member, was present.

The board justified the closed-door meeting by stating they were discussing legal advice and contemplated litigation, a valid exception under A.R.S. § 33-1804. However, the ALJ’s final decision highlighted a crucial detail:

“Petitioner was a member of the Board at the time of the meeting and did not object to the Board voting on whether Article IV, Section 2 of Respondent’s Bylaws permitted Petitioner to run for the board…”

This offers a stark lesson. A person’s failure to object to a process in the moment can significantly weaken their ability to challenge it later. It’s easy to see why someone might stay silent: they may be intimidated, unsure of the rules, or simply not realize the procedural gravity of their silence. This surprising takeaway underscores that understanding the rules of order as they are happening is critical, because silence can be interpreted as consent.

5. The “Why” Trumped the “What”

The story concluded when the Administrative Law Judge denied the petitioner’s case on both counts. In the face of ambiguous text and competing legal opinions, the judge focused on the fundamental purpose of the 2021 bylaw amendment. The final decision stated:

“…the preponderance of the evidence presented at hearing shows that the purpose of the 2021 amendment was to prevent Board members for serving on the Board for long periods of time.”

In this legal gray area, the underlying intent—the “why” behind the rule—proved more powerful than the technical arguments about the “what.” The judge determined that an interpretation creating 10-year term limits could not possibly align with the members’ vote to prevent people from serving for long periods. The surprising lesson is that even when the text is debatable, the spirit of a rule can become the most decisive factor in its application.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: Are You Sure You Know What Your Rules Mean?

The Val Vista Lakes case is a powerful reminder that the words in bylaws are not just suggestions; they have real-world power to shape communities, define rights, and launch costly legal battles. Bylaws are “living documents” in the sense that they have a daily impact, but they are dangerously “dead documents” if members don’t understand them. The consequences are not just financial. At the hearing, former president Bill Sutell gave a poignant final statement explaining his departure from the community he had worked so hard to serve: “I sold my home that this was more than I needed in my retirement.”

This case is a cautionary tale about the human cost of ambiguity. It leaves every HOA member with a final, thought-provoking challenge: When was the last time you read your community’s governing documents, and are you willing to actively question ambiguity and push for clarity before a conflict arises?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Sharon M. Maiden (petitioner)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Former board member/candidate
William Sutel (witness)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Former board president; bylaw committee member
Douglas Keats (witness)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Board member; bylaw committee member; requested subpoena for him
Jeremy Whitaker (petitioner)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Filed ADR complaint

Respondent Side

Josh Bolen (HOA attorney)
CHDB Law LLP
Counsel for Val Vista Lakes Community Association; requested subpoena for him
Jill Brown (board member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Bylaw committee chair; respondent witness
Bryan Patterson (board president)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Respondent witness; Also listed as subpoenaed witness
Chuck Oldham (HOA attorney)
CHDB Law LLP
Mel McDonald (board president)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Requested subpoena; board member
Vicki Goslin (attorney staff)
CHDB Law LLP

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
OAH
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
ADRE
Kay A. Abramsohn (ALJ)
OAH
Ashley Turner (attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Wrote 2016 legal opinion; Also listed as subpoenaed witness
Jessica Misto (attorney)
Provided legal review/opinion
Adrienne Speed (attorney)
Cartik and Speed
General counsel who wrote 2023 opinion

Other Participants

Diana Ebertshauser (witness)
Requested subpoena; candidate
Brodie Hurtado (witness)
Requested subpoena; candidate
Timothy Hedrick (witness)
Requested subpoena
Christine Rucker (board member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Requested subpoena
Curtis Weile (board member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Requested subpoena
Cheryl McCoy (former board president)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Brian Solomon (former board member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Dustin Snow (former director)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Wendy Rhodess (bylaw committee member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Jonathan Everhouser (attorney)
CHDB Law LLP
Bylaw committee member
Laura Henry (property manager)
First Service Residential
General Manager
Leslie Johnson (former director)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
John Walls (former board member)
Val Vista Lakes Community Association
Community member

Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC. vs Matthew P. Petrovic

Posted on May 6, 2025 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H019-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2025-07-01
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC	Counsel	Danny M. Ford, Esq.
Respondent	Matthew P. Petrovic	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04

Outcome Summary

The Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate granted the Respondent's request for rehearing of the underlying ALJ Decision.

Why this result: The Commissioner found grounds (errors of law and arbitrary decision) sufficient to grant the Respondent's motion for rehearing.

Key Issues & Findings

Rehearing Request: Errors of Law and Arbitrary Decision

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Rehearing, Procedural Error, Arbitrary Decision, Selective Enforcement

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
Arizona Administrative Code R4-28-1310
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1301437.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:36 (137.3 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1327903.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:44 (2245.4 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1344402.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:49 (57.4 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1353469.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:53 (73.9 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1353471.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:14:58 (9.4 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1364458.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:15:02 (59.3 KB)

25F-H019-REL Decision – 1381249.pdf

Uploaded 2026-02-11T07:31:56 (233.9 KB)

Briefing Doc – 25F-H019-REL

Briefing Document: Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC vs. Matthew Petrovic

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key events, arguments, and rulings in the administrative dispute between homeowner Matthew Petrovic (Respondent) and the Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC (Petitioner), case number 25F-H019. Following an initial Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision on May 5, 2025, that found the Petitioner to be the prevailing party, the Respondent successfully petitioned for a rehearing.

The Respondent’s request for a rehearing was based on several grounds, including the misinterpretation of evidence regarding landscaping (Sago palms), insufficient evidence for a paint violation, and the arbitrary denial of a medically necessary walkway. Critically, Mr. Petrovic also cited significant procedural failures, alleging he was denied due process because he was misinformed about the nature of the original hearing and was thus unprepared and without legal counsel. He further claimed that the Petitioner’s witness provided false testimony and that key evidence was improperly excluded.

The Petitioner objected to the rehearing request, arguing solely that it was filed five days past the statutory 30-day deadline. Despite this objection, the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate granted the rehearing. The official order cites two specific grounds for granting the request: “Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding,” and “That the findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” A subsequent continuance has moved the new hearing to October 22, 2025.

Case Overview and Procedural History

The case involves a dispute between a homeowner and his HOA that was initially adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The homeowner, Matthew Petrovic, appealed the initial decision to the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) Commissioner and was granted a new hearing.

Key Parties and Representatives:

Name/Entity

Affiliation

Petitioner

Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC

Attorney for Petitioner

Danny M. Ford, Esq.

Goodman Law Group

Respondent

Matthew P. Petrovic

Original ALJ

Velva Moses–Thompson

Office of Administrative Hearings

Deputy Commissioner

Mandy Neat

Arizona Department of Real Estate

ALJ for Continuance

Nicole Robinson

Office of Administrative Hearings

Timeline of Events:

Description

April 15, 2025

Original Hearing

The initial hearing on the dispute takes place.

May 5, 2025

Initial ALJ Decision

ALJ Velva Moses–Thompson issues a decision deeming the Petitioner the “prevailing party.” The decision includes a notice of a 30-day deadline to request a rehearing.

June 9, 2025

Rehearing Request Filed

Respondent Matthew Petrovic files a Dispute Rehearing Request with the ADRE Commissioner.

June 17, 2025

Objection to Rehearing

The Petitioner files a timely response, objecting to the rehearing request on the grounds that it was filed five days past the deadline.

July 3, 2025

Rehearing Granted

The ADRE Deputy Commissioner issues an “Order Granting Rehearing Request.”

July 23, 2025

Notice of Hearing Issued

A notice for the new hearing is issued (as referenced in a later document).

August 28, 2025

Continuance Granted

At the Respondent’s request, ALJ Nicole Robinson grants a continuance for the hearing.

October 22, 2025 (1:00 PM)

Scheduled Rehearing

The new, continued date for the rehearing is set.

Respondent’s Grounds for Rehearing Petition

Matthew Petrovic submitted a detailed petition outlining four primary areas of concern: the factual basis for the violations, procedural irregularities, false testimony, and a lack of due process.

1. Landscape Violation – Sago Palms

Mr. Petrovic argues the ruling that Sago palms are prohibited was incorrect and contradicted the evidence he presented.

• Evidence Submitted: He claims to have provided copies of the CC&Rs, documentation from the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (AMWUA) classifying Sago palms as drought-tolerant plants and not true palm trees, and supporting witness testimony.

• Allegation of False Testimony: He asserts that the petitioner’s witness, identified as “Kevin,” gave false testimony under oath by stating the plants were not allowed, despite being presented with contrary evidence.

• New Evidence: Since the hearing, Mr. Petrovic states he has directly contacted AMWUA, which confirmed Sago palms are not in the palm family. He also notes that a current board member is willing to testify that the plants are permitted under the HOA’s governing documents.

2. Paint Condition Dispute

The petition contends that the ruling on his home’s paint being “in disrepair” was not supported by credible evidence.

• Conflicting Testimony: Three witnesses, including Mr. Petrovic, testified that the paint is in good condition. The individual who testified against the paint’s condition is reportedly no longer a sitting board member.

• Prior Approval and Inconsistent Reasoning: The exterior paint was reviewed and approved by the HOA board when he purchased the home. He alleges the board has demonstrated “inconsistent reasoning” by first claiming the violation was due to the paint needing to be two colors and later changing the reason to “disrepair.”

• Lack of Evidence from Petitioner: The petition states the board has not submitted objective proof, such as photographs or condition reports, to support its claim. Mr. Petrovic views these actions as potential “selective enforcement and retaliation” for his opposition to prior board actions.

3. Paver Walkway Denial

Mr. Petrovic claims the HOA has engaged in selective enforcement and bad faith by repeatedly denying his application for a modified walkway over the past three years.

• Medical Necessity: The walkway modifications are supported by a physician’s letter referencing chronic back and shoulder conditions.

• Selective Enforcement: Similar walkways have allegedly been approved for other homeowners, yet his requests have been denied without justification.

• Violation of CC&Rs: He argues the denial violates the community’s CC&Rs, which require the board to act reasonably and impartially, and that the denial could be viewed as discrimination.

4. Procedural and Due Process Concerns

A significant portion of the petition focuses on procedural failures that Mr. Petrovic believes deprived him of a fair hearing.

• Exclusion of Evidence: He states that key evidence relevant to his claim of selective enforcement was excluded from the hearing due to concerns about third-party privacy.

• Misunderstanding of Hearing Nature: Mr. Petrovic was “led to believe the meeting was a mediation session” and was unaware that binding decisions could result.

• Inability to Prepare Defense: Due to this misunderstanding and “financial hardship,” he was unable to retain legal counsel or properly prepare his case, which he argues “constitutes a denial of due process.”

Petitioner’s Objection to Rehearing

The Tatum Highlands Community Association, through its attorney Danny M. Ford of Goodman Law Group, filed an objection based on a single procedural argument.

• Untimely Filing: The Petitioner’s core argument is that the request for rehearing was time-barred.

◦ The decision was served on May 5, 2025.

◦ The 30-day statutory deadline, per A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, was June 4, 2025.

◦ Mr. Petrovic filed his request on June 9, 2025, five days late.

• Notice of Deadline: The objection notes that the deadline was “plainly written on the very Decision” and that being unrepresented is not an excuse for missing it.

• Requested Action: The Petitioner respectfully requested that the ALJ deny and dismiss the rehearing request as untimely.

Official Rulings and Current Status

Order Granting Rehearing Request

On July 3, 2025, Deputy Commissioner Mandy Neat of the Arizona Department of Real Estate issued an order granting Mr. Petrovic’s request. The order implicitly overruled the Petitioner’s objection regarding the filing deadline. The Commissioner cited two of the grounds available for granting a rehearing, which directly align with the arguments made in Mr. Petrovic’s petition:

1. Error in the admission or rejection of evidence or other errors of law occurring during the proceeding.

2. That the findings of fact or decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Order Granting Continuance and Current Status

An order dated August 28, 2025, from Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson shows that the rehearing was continued at the request of the Respondent, Matthew Petrovic.

• The rehearing is officially scheduled to take place on October 22, 2025, at 1:00 PM.

Study Guide – 25F-H019-REL

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “25F-H019-REL-RHG”,
“case_title”: “Tatum Highlands Community Association, Inc. v. Matthew P. Petrovic”,
“decision_date”: “2025-12-26”,
“alj_name”: “Nicole Robinson”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “Who has the burden of proof in an HOA violation hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “The Petitioner (usually the HOA initiating the case) bears the burden of proof.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding HOA disputes, the party filing the petition (the Petitioner) must prove that the other party violated the governing documents by a preponderance of the evidence.”,
“alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the aforementioned CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”,
“topic_tags”: [
“burden of proof”,
“legal standards”,
“procedure”
]
},
{
“question”: “What is the standard of proof used in these hearings?”,
“short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the existence of a contested fact is more probable than not.”,
“alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence means ‘proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.'”,
“legal_basis”: “In re William L., 211 Ariz. 236, 238 (App. 2005)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“legal standards”,
“evidence”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can I install a driveway extension without prior HOA approval if neighbors have similar ones?”,
“short_answer”: “No. You must seek approval first.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Even if neighbors have similar features, failing to seek Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approval prior to installation constitutes a violation of the CC&Rs. The presence of other potentially non-compliant homes does not excuse the failure to follow the approval process.”,
“alj_quote”: “Regardless, the record has established that Respondent did not seek ARC approval prior to installing the paver driveway extension. … As such, Petitioner has established that Respondent violated CC&R, Section 4.2.1.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.1”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural control”,
“driveways”,
“selective enforcement”
]
},
{
“question”: “What happens if I plant trees that the Architectural Committee specifically denied?”,
“short_answer”: “It is a violation of the governing documents.”,
“detailed_answer”: “Proceeding to install landscaping that was explicitly denied by the Architectural Review Committee establishes a clear violation of the community’s restrictions.”,
“alj_quote”: “In regard to the pigmy palm tree matter, the evidence clearly established that Respondent requested to plant two pigmy palm trees in his front yard, was denied by ARC, and planted them anyway. … Hence, Petitioner has established that Respondent violated CC&R Section 4.2.7.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.7 / Design Guidelines”,
“topic_tags”: [
“landscaping”,
“architectural control”,
“violations”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge rule on Fair Housing Act discrimination claims?”,
“short_answer”: “No, that venue cannot address Fair Housing Act claims.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The Office of Administrative Hearings for the Department of Real Estate does not have jurisdiction to address claims regarding violations of the Fair Housing Act in these proceedings.”,
“alj_quote”: “In addition, Respondent’s claims regarding the Association violating the Fair Housing Act cannot be addressed in this venue.”,
“legal_basis”: “Jurisdiction limits”,
“topic_tags”: [
“jurisdiction”,
“discrimination”,
“Fair Housing Act”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can the HOA fine me for ‘disrepair’ of paint if the paint is just old but not damaged?”,
“short_answer”: “Not necessarily, if evidence shows it is not in disrepair.”,
“detailed_answer”: “If witness testimony establishes that the paint is not actually in disrepair, fines based on that allegation may be waived, even if the homeowner needs to eventually repaint to meet new color schemes.”,
“alj_quote”: “Also, the evidence established from firsthand witnesses that Respondent’s paint was not in disrepair. Therefore, Respondent should be given the opportunity to move forward with the ARC approval for painting his home and any fines he received in regards to the paint be waived.”,
“legal_basis”: “CC&R Section 4.2.7”,
“topic_tags”: [
“maintenance”,
“paint”,
“fines”
]
},
{
“question”: “Do I have to reimburse the HOA’s filing fees if I lose the hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes, typically for the issues on which the HOA prevails.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ may order the Respondent to reimburse the Petitioner’s filing fees. In this case, the Respondent was ordered to pay fees proportional to the two issues the HOA won.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee of $1,000.00 in certified funds for the two issues.”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01”,
“topic_tags”: [
“penalties”,
“fees”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does the HOA have to waive fines if a violation was not proven?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes.”,
“detailed_answer”: “If the HOA fails to prove a specific violation (e.g., that paint was in disrepair), the ALJ may order the Association to waive fines related to that specific issue.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner waive all fines issued to Respondent in regards to the paint issue.”,
“legal_basis”: “Administrative Order”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fines”,
“penalties”
]
}
]
}

Blog Post – 25F-H019-REL

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Danny Ford (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Attorney for Tatum Highlands Community Association, INC.
Kevin Hufnagel (board member)
Tatum Highlands HOA Board
Testified as a witness for Petitioner; served on Board of Directors.
Brian Lumpkey (board member)
Tatum Highlands HOA Board
Board Vice President; testified as witness/representative for Petitioner.
Elizabeth Lindlam (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Appeared for observation only.
Pat Diaz (board member)
Tatum Highlands HOA Board
Current President, previously on ARC Board.
Leanne Dilberto (property manager)
Trestle Management
Observed violations during paint audit; referred to as Leanne Dilberto, Lean Zioto, and Leand Alberto in sources.
Caitlyn Flores (staff)
Trestle Management
Denied ARC application.
Karen Vanderos (staff)
Trestle Management
Trestle Management employee.

Respondent Side

Matthew P. Petrovic (respondent)
Appeared on behalf of himself; also testified.
Tracy Kennedy (witness)
Listed as a potential witness for Respondent.
Todd Pearson (witness)
Listed as a potential witness for Respondent.
Thomas KTO (witness)
Listed as a potential witness for Respondent.

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Administrative Law Judge for the initial decision.
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
ADRE
Mandy Neat (Deputy Commissioner)
ADRE
Nicole Robinson (ALJ)
Administrative Law Judge for the rehearing.
vnunez (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE.
djones (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE.
labril (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE.
lrecchia (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE.
gosborn (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE.
dmorehouse (staff)
ADRE
Listed in transmission for ADRE.

Rosalie Lynne Emmons v. Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association

Posted on August 22, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H055-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-08-22
Administrative Law Judge	Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Rosalie Lynne Emmons	Counsel	—
Respondent	Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association	Counsel	Michael S. McLeran

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 2 §§ 3.2, 3.3, and 3.11

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association engaged in selective enforcement regarding the shed constructed without prior approval, which violated the CC&Rs and design guidelines.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of selective enforcement. She admitted her shed was built without prior approval, was taller than the fence line, and was visible from the street, all of which violated the CC&Rs. The evidence presented by the Respondent showed consistent enforcement actions regarding similar violations.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged selective, arbitrary, and capricious enforcement of CC&Rs regarding shed construction and prior approval.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA selectively enforced its shed policy against her, claiming that her denial for a shed built without prior approval and exceeding the fence height should be excused because other, similar non-compliant sheds existed in the community and were not consistently cited.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was dismissed. Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
CC&Rs Article 2 §§ 3.2, 3.3, and 3.11
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Enforcement, Selective Enforcement, Shed, Design Guidelines, CC&Rs, Prior Approval

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092 et seq.
CC&Rs Article 2 §§ 3.2, 3.3, and 3.11
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H055-REL Decision – 1062778.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:44 (44.1 KB)

23F-H055-REL Decision – 1086088.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:57:46 (110.9 KB)

jurisdiction
ADRE
dispute resolution

Case

Docket No: 23F-H055-REL
Case Title: Rosalie Lynne Emmons vs Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association
Decision Date: 2023-08-22
Alj Name: Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

If I claim my HOA is engaging in 'selective enforcement', do I have to prove it, or do they have to prove they aren't?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proving selective enforcement by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

selective enforcement
burden of proof
legal procedure

Question

Can my HOA punish me for building a structure (like a shed) without prior approval, even if I apply for approval after building it?

Short Answer

Yes. Building without prior written approval violates standard CC&Rs, and a subsequent application denial is valid if the structure violates guidelines.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Petitioner admitted she built her shed without prior approval from the Design Review Committee… all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

CC&R Violation

Topic Tags

architectural approval
unauthorized construction
violations

Question

If my HOA relaxed enforcement during a specific period (like the COVID-19 pandemic), does that mean they can never enforce those rules again?

Short Answer

No. A temporary reduction in enforcement during a crisis does not prevent the HOA from resuming enforcement later.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Respondent’s witness testified during COVID enforcement was reduced, however, following the reopening of the economy post-COVID, enforcement was resumed.

Legal Basis

Enforcement Discretion

Topic Tags

waiver
enforcement history
COVID-19

Question

Can the HOA deny my shed if it is visible from the street or taller than the fence line?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs or Design Guidelines prohibit structures that are taller than the fence or visible from the street.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Here, Petitioner admitted… her shed is taller than the current fence line, and the shed can be seen from the street; all of which are violations of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

Design Guidelines

Topic Tags

architectural standards
sheds
visibility

Question

What is the 'standard of proof' used in these HOA hearings?

Short Answer

The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing something is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Evidentiary Standard

Topic Tags

legal definitions
evidence
hearings

Question

Where can I file a legal dispute against my HOA without going to civil court?

Short Answer

Arizona homeowners can petition the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) for a hearing.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

jurisdiction
ADRE
dispute resolution

Case

Docket No: 23F-H055-REL
Case Title: Rosalie Lynne Emmons vs Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association
Decision Date: 2023-08-22
Alj Name: Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Rosalie Lynne Emmons (petitioner)
Rovey Farm Estates property owner; appeared on her own behalf

Respondent Side

Michael S. McLeran (HOA attorney)
Childers Hanlon & Hudson, PLC
Appeared on behalf of Rovey Farm Estates Homeowners Association
Matt Johnson (community manager/witness)
Envision Community Management
Community Manager for Rovey Farm Estate; Appeared as a witness for the Association
Mark Schmidt (HOA staff)
Envision Community Management
Completed exhibit list (Exhibit 7) used by Respondent
Carrie Schmidt (compliance officer)
Envision Community Management
Compliance inspector responsible for citing violations

Neutral Parties

Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
ADRE
Arizona Department of Real Estate Commissioner

Other Participants

AHansen (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of decision transmission
vnunez (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of decision transmission
djones (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of decision transmission
labril (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of decision transmission
Jose Garcia (homeowner/applicant)
Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application was denied
Gilbert Bar (homeowner/applicant)
Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application was denied
Jane Kim (homeowner/applicant)
Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application (with MJ Kim) was denied
MJ Kim (homeowner/applicant)
Rovey Farm Estates Homeowner whose shed application (with Jane Kim) was denied

David G. Iadevavia v. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on August 18, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2222044-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-07-29
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	David G. Iadevavia	Counsel	—
Respondent	Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.	Counsel	Carolyn B. Goldschmidt, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Section 2.16

Outcome Summary

The HOA did not violate its duties by selectively enforcing CC&R Section 2.16 against Petitioner regarding his mobile observatory.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove that the mobile observatory was not a trailer under the plain and obvious meaning of CC&R Section 2.16, or that the HOA's enforcement constituted illegal selective enforcement.

Key Issues & Findings

Selective enforcement of CC&R Section 2.16 regarding vehicles/trailers.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA selectively enforced CC&R Section 2.16 (regarding parking/vehicles/trailers) against him concerning his 'mobile observatory' while failing to enforce the rule or similar rules against other homeowners (sheds).

Orders: The Administrative Law Judge determined that the HOA did not violate its duties by selectively enforcing CC&R Section 2.16 against the Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC, 868 T2 1030
Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC, 177 Arizona 47
Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation, 87P381
Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation, 207 Arizona 393
Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 6.13(1)(b),(c) (2000)
A.R.S. §32-2199.02(B)
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
A.R.S. § 12-904(A)
A.R.S. 41-1092.07
A.A.C. R2-19-106(D)
A.A.C. R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4)
A.A.C. R2-19-116

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Selective Enforcement, Trailer, Mobile Observatory, Parking

Additional Citations:

CC&R Section 2.16
Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes
Arizona Biltmore Estates vs. TZAC
Burke versus Voice Screen Wireless Corporation

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 973802.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:05 (46.0 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 974694.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:08 (48.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 975118.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:12 (40.9 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977059.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:15 (52.0 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977202.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:20 (48.2 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 977294.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:23 (6.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978417.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:26 (50.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978990.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:31 (44.1 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 978991.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:34 (42.3 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 979005.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:38 (50.4 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 982403.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:42 (55.2 KB)

22F-H2222044-REL Decision – 993469.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:47:44 (55.5 KB)

Virtual Hearing
Accessibility
Procedure

Case

Docket No: 22F-H2222044-REL
Case Title: David G. Iadevavia vs. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date: 2022-07-08
Alj Name: Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Can I claim that my HOA violated a CC&R provision meant to regulate homeowner behavior, such as parking rules?

Short Answer

No. CC&R provisions regulating conduct like parking are rules for homeowners to follow, not the HOA.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

This is a CC&R that regulates the homeowners. A homeowner may violate this section, but not the HOA… This is not a section that the HOA would violate in and of itself.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

CC&R Violations
HOA Obligations
Legal Standards

Question

Am I entitled to a rebuttal closing argument after the hearing record closes?

Short Answer

No. Rebuttal closing arguments are generally not permitted under OAH rules.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-116

Topic Tags

Hearing Procedures
Homeowner Rights
Closing Arguments

Question

Can I amend the hearing issue to include general claims about the HOA's duty to treat members fairly?

Short Answer

The tribunal may deny such amendments if it lacks jurisdiction over broad common law claims.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to amend the hearing issue is denied due to lack of jurisdiction.

Legal Basis

Jurisdiction

Topic Tags

Jurisdiction
Amending Claims
Fairness

Question

Will my request for a subpoena automatically be granted?

Short Answer

No. Subpoena requests must strictly follow the Arizona Administrative Code requirements.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that the request for subpoena is denied. The request does not satisfy the requirements of Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113(A)(3) and (4).

Legal Basis

Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-113

Topic Tags

Evidence
Subpoenas
Procedural Requirements

Question

Does the filing fee cover multiple unrelated issues in my petition?

Short Answer

No. The filing fee is tied to the number of issues; additional issues require additional payment.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

With the violation of CC&R 2.16 and also 33-1803 and 33-1804. Those would be three separate issues and that would require a total payment of $1,500.

Legal Basis

Filing Fees

Topic Tags

Filing Fees
Petition Process
Costs

Question

Can the hearing be conducted virtually instead of in person?

Short Answer

Yes. The ALJ can order the hearing to be conducted via video conferencing or telephone.

Detailed Answer

The Office of Administrative Hearings utilizes platforms like Google Meet to allow parties to appear virtually for hearings.

Alj Quote

IT IS ORDERED that the hearing in this matter will be conducted either by video conferencing or telephone participation through Google Meet

Legal Basis

Hearing Procedures

Topic Tags

Virtual Hearing
Accessibility
Procedure

Case

Docket No: 22F-H2222044-REL
Case Title: David G. Iadevavia vs. Ventana Shadows Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date: 2022-07-08
Alj Name: Velva Moses-Thompson
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

David G. Iadevavia (petitioner)
Jill H. Perrella (attorney)
Snell & Wilmer LLP

Respondent Side

Carolyn B. Goldschmidt (HOA attorney)
Goldschmidt | Shupe, PLLC
Bill Borg (witness/board member)
Jason Bader (witness/board member)

Neutral Parties

Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
c. serrano (OAH staff)
M Alvarez (OAH staff)
A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
D. Jones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
L. Abril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

Rick Abbott (spectator)

Richard J. Jones v. Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

Posted on November 15, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121038-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-11-15
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Richard J Jones	Counsel	—
Respondent	Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association	Counsel	Troy Stratman, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Design Guidelines; CC&Rs Section 4.1.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Richard J. Jones failed to meet his burden of proof to show the Association violated its Design Guidelines or engaged in selective enforcement.

Why this result: Petitioner did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated the Guidelines or engaged in selective enforcement. Evidence indicated that the Petitioner was in violation of the existing Guidelines by failing to obtain prior approval for his driveway extension and failing to meet the required setback.

Key Issues & Findings

Petitioner alleged the Association violated Design Guidelines regarding setback requirements for driveway extensions and engaged in selective enforcement.

Petitioner filed a single issue petition asserting that Design Guidelines did not require a twelve-inch setback for driveway extensions from the property line and that the Association was selectively enforcing its rules. The Petitioner had installed a concrete driveway extension without obtaining prior ARC approval, and approval was denied due to the lack of the twelve-inch setback.

Orders: Richard J. Jones’s petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 173, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Driveway Extension, Architectural Review Committee, Setback Requirements, Design Guidelines, Selective Enforcement, HOA Violation

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.09
Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 173, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121038-REL Decision – 924982.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:52 (100.9 KB)

21F-H2121038-REL Decision – 924983.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:36:57 (94.9 KB)

Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121038-REL

Briefing Document: Jones v. Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge in the case of Richard J. Jones versus the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association (Case No. 21F-H2121038-REL). The dispute centered on a concrete driveway extension installed by Mr. Jones without the prior approval of the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC). Mr. Jones contested the Association’s denial of his post-installation application, alleging that the Design Guidelines were misinterpreted and selectively enforced.

The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, ultimately dismissed Mr. Jones’s petition. The decision rested on three key determinations:

1. Clear Violation: Mr. Jones was in direct violation of the Design Guidelines by failing to obtain prior approval for the modification and by not adhering to a mandatory 12-inch setback from the common block wall, a fact he acknowledged.

2. Reasonable Interpretation: The Association’s interpretation that the 12-inch setback requirement applied to the entire property line—not just the block wall—was deemed “not unreasonable,” particularly since the common wall is part of the property line.

3. Failure to Prove Selective Enforcement: Mr. Jones did not meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard to prove his claim of selective enforcement. The Association provided credible evidence demonstrating consistent application of the setback rule to other homeowners.

The final order upholds the Association’s enforcement actions and dismisses the petitioner’s claims.

Case Overview

Parties and Jurisdictional Details

Name / Entity

Representation

Petitioner

Richard J. Jones

On his own behalf

Respondent

Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

Troy Stratman, Esq.

Adjudicator

Thomas Shedden

Administrative Law Judge

Case No.

21F-H2121038-REL

Hearing Date

November 2, 2021

Decision Date

November 15, 2021

Core Dispute

The central conflict arose from a concrete driveway extension installed by Richard J. Jones on his property on May 11, 2020. The installation was performed without submitting a request for prior approval to the Association’s Architectural Review Committee (ARC), a violation of the community’s CC&Rs. Following the installation, the ARC denied Mr. Jones’s retroactive application, citing its failure to meet a required 12-inch setback from the property line. This led to a notice of non-compliance and a fine, prompting Mr. Jones to file a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Chronology of Events

• April 2020: Mr. Jones contacted AAM, LLC, the Association’s property management company, to inquire about adding concrete strips. He was informed this was not allowed but that an employee could assist with an approval process for a paver driveway extension.

• May 11, 2020: Having not received further guidance from the management company, Mr. Jones proceeded to have the concrete driveway extension installed.

• Post-May 11, 2020: Mr. Jones submitted an application to the ARC for retroactive approval of the already-installed extension.

• December 2, 2020: The ARC formally denied Mr. Jones’s application. The denial letter stated the extension did not meet the 12-inch setback requirement and advised him to reapply after cutting the driveway back from the property line.

• January 12, 2021: The Association issued a Second Notice of Non-compliance/Fine.

• February 12, 2021: Mr. Jones filed a petition with the Department of Real Estate, alleging the Association was misinterpreting and selectively enforcing its Design Guidelines.

• November 2, 2021: The administrative hearing was conducted.

• November 15, 2021: The Administrative Law Judge issued a decision dismissing Mr. Jones’s petition.

Analysis of Arguments and Evidence

Petitioner’s Position (Richard J. Jones)

Mr. Jones’s case was built on two primary arguments:

• Interpretation of Design Guidelines: He contended that the Guidelines in effect at the time of installation required a 12-inch setback from the “common wall” but were silent regarding the “property line.” He argued that since the Guidelines explicitly mandated a property line setback for sidewalks, the absence of such language for driveway extensions meant the requirement did not apply.

• Allegation of Selective Enforcement: He asserted that the Association was applying its Guidelines and Rules inconsistently among homeowners.

During testimony, Mr. Jones acknowledged that his driveway extension did not comply with the 12-inch setback from the common wall and expressed a willingness to correct that specific deficiency. He also testified that his neighbors did not object to the extension as installed.

Respondent’s Position (Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association)

The Association, represented by counsel, presented a multi-faceted defense:

• Procedural Failure: A core issue was Mr. Jones’s failure to obtain prior approval from the ARC before installation, as mandated by Section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs.

• Violation of Setback Rule: The Association maintained that the extension violated the required 12-inch setback. The property manager, Paul Favale, testified that this rule is intended to ensure water does not drain onto a neighbor’s property.

• Evidence of Consistent Enforcement: To counter the claim of selective enforcement, the Association submitted an “Architectural Status Report” for the period of August 27, 2020, through April 21, 2021. This report demonstrated that other homeowners’ requests for driveway extensions had also been denied for failing to meet the 12-inch property line setback.

It was also noted that the Design Guidelines have since been modified to explicitly require a 12-inch setback from both the common wall and the property line.

Administrative Law Judge’s Findings and Conclusions

The Judge’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards.

Key Findings of Fact

• Mr. Jones installed the driveway extension on May 11, 2020, without prior approval from the ARC.

• The extension does not have a 12-inch setback from the common block wall, which is part of the property line.

• The Design Guidelines at the time explicitly required a 12-inch setback from the block wall.

• Mr. Jones acknowledged his non-compliance with the block wall setback requirement.

Conclusions of Law

The Judge concluded that Mr. Jones failed to meet his burden of proof, which required demonstrating a violation by the Association by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

1. Petitioner’s Violation: Mr. Jones was found to be in violation of the Guidelines. His acknowledgment that the driveway did not comply with the 12-inch setback from the common wall was a critical factor.

2. Reasonableness of Association’s Interpretation: The Judge determined that the Association’s interpretation of the Guidelines—requiring a 12-inch setback along the entire property line—was “not unreasonable.” This conclusion was supported by two points: the common wall is physically part of the property line, and Mr. Jones had failed to follow the required prior approval process, where such ambiguities would have been clarified.

3. No Evidence of Selective Enforcement: The Association presented “credible evidence” via its Architectural Status Report showing that other members were subject to the same rule. Consequently, Mr. Jones “did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association was selectively enforcing the Guidelines.”

Final Order and Implications

• Order: The Judge ordered that Richard J. Jones’s petition be dismissed.

• Legal Standing: The decision is binding on both parties.

• Appeal Process: The order can only be challenged through a request for rehearing, which must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order (November 15, 2021).

Study Guide – 21F-H2121038-REL

Study Guide: Jones v. Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association

This guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case No. 21F-H2121038-REL, involving Petitioner Richard J. Jones and Respondent Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, suggested essay questions, and a glossary of key terms to facilitate a thorough understanding of the case’s facts, legal arguments, and final judgment.

——————————————————————————–

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each of the following questions in 2-3 sentences based on the provided case documents.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this administrative hearing, and what were their roles?

2. What specific modification did Richard J. Jones make to his property, and on what date did he complete it?

3. What critical step did Mr. Jones fail to take before installing the modification, as required by Section 4.1.1 of the CC&Rs?

4. According to the Design Guidelines in effect at the time of installation, what was the specific rule regarding the placement of driveway extensions that Mr. Jones’s project violated?

5. What was Mr. Jones’s main argument regarding the ambiguity of the Design Guidelines concerning the twelve-inch setback requirement?

6. What justification did the Association’s property manager, Paul Favale, provide for the setback requirement?

7. What were the two primary claims Mr. Jones made against the Association in his petition filed on February 12, 2021?

8. What is the standard of proof required in this matter, and which party carried the burden of meeting that standard?

9. How did the Association counter Mr. Jones’s claim that it was selectively enforcing its rules?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this case?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The primary parties were the Petitioner, Richard J. Jones, a homeowner who appeared on his own behalf, and the Respondent, the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association, which was represented by its counsel, Troy Stratman, Esq.

2. On May 11, 2020, Mr. Jones added a concrete driveway running from the street to a side gate on his property. This modification is referred to in the documents as a “driveway extension.”

3. Mr. Jones did not submit a request for prior approval to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) before installing his driveway extension. This pre-approval is required for such modifications under the Association’s CC&Rs.

4. The driveway extension violated the rule requiring a twelve-inch setback from the common block wall. Mr. Jones acknowledged that his driveway did not comply with this specific requirement of the Design Guidelines.

5. Mr. Jones argued that since the Design Guidelines explicitly required a twelve-inch setback from the property line for sidewalks but did not explicitly state the same for driveway extensions, the requirement did not apply to his project along the full property line.

6. Mr. Favale testified that the purpose of the setback requirement is functional. It is designed to help ensure that water does not drain from one property onto a neighboring property.

7. Mr. Jones’s petition asserted that the Design Guidelines for driveway extensions did not require a setback from the property line (only the common wall). He also claimed that the Association was selectively enforcing its Guidelines and Rules against him.

8. The standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner, Mr. Jones, bore the burden of proof to show that the Association had violated its own guidelines.

9. The Association submitted an Architectural Status Report covering August 27, 2020, to April 21, 2021. This report provided credible evidence that other Association members had also been denied requests for driveway extensions due to a failure to meet the twelve-inch setback requirement.

10. The Administrative Law Judge, Thomas Shedden, ordered that Richard J. Jones’s petition be dismissed. The judge concluded that Mr. Jones had not met his burden of proof to show the Association had violated its guidelines or enforced them selectively.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

The following questions are designed to encourage deeper analysis of the case. Answers are not provided.

1. Discuss the concept of “burden of proof” and the “preponderance of the evidence” standard as they were applied in this case. Explain specifically how Mr. Jones failed to meet this burden for both of his primary claims.

2. Analyze the legal reasoning used by the Administrative Law Judge to determine that the Association’s interpretation of its Design Guidelines was “not unreasonable.” Consider the judge’s reference to the common wall being part of the property line and Mr. Jones’s failure to obtain prior approval.

3. Trace the timeline of events from Mr. Jones’s initial inquiry to AAM, LLC in April 2020 to the final order in November 2021. Discuss how Mr. Jones’s decision to proceed with construction without explicit approval ultimately weakened his legal position.

4. Evaluate the claim of “selective enforcement.” What kind of evidence would Mr. Jones have needed to present to successfully prove this claim, and why was the Association’s Architectural Status Report considered more compelling evidence by the court?

5. The “Conclusions of Law” section states that the Design Guidelines are part of a contract between the parties. Using the facts of this case, explain the legal and practical implications of this principle for a homeowner living within a master association.

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

AAM, LLC

The property management company for the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The judge who presides over administrative hearings and renders decisions. In this case, the ALJ was Thomas Shedden.

Architectural Review Committee (ARC)

The committee within the homeowners’ association responsible for reviewing and granting prior approval for modifications to properties, such as driveway extensions.

Burden of Proof

The obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. In this case, the burden of proof was on the petitioner, Mr. Jones.

An abbreviation for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which are the governing legal documents for a planned community or homeowners’ association.

Design Guidelines

A set of rules that are part of the contract between homeowners and the association, detailing requirements for property modifications.

Driveway Extension

As defined by the parties, a concrete driveway running from the street to a gate at the side of a house.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Richard J. Jones.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof required in this case. It is defined as evidence that has “the most convincing force” and is sufficient to “incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association.

Selective Enforcement

The legal claim that an association is not applying its rules and guidelines uniformly, instead penalizing some members while allowing others to violate the same rules.

Setback

A required distance that a structure must be located away from a property line or other feature, such as a common wall. In this case, the requirement was for a twelve-inch setback.

Blog Post – 21F-H2121038-REL

The overarching theme from this case is that HOA governing documents are not merely suggestions; they are legally binding. As stated in Conclusion of Law #5, the Design Guidelines are part of a contract between the homeowner and the association. While HOA rules can often feel arbitrary or frustrating, they carry the weight of a contract. The path to successfully challenging them is narrow and requires a clear, well-documented case that proves the HOA, not the homeowner, has breached its duties.

This case serves as a powerful reminder for all community members. How well do you really know the contract you’re living under?

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Richard J Jones (petitioner)
Appeared and testified on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Troy Stratman (attorney)
Stratman Law Firm, PLC
Counsel for Respondent
Paul Favale (property manager)
Desert Oasis of Surprise Master Association
Testified for Respondent
Angela Pate (property manager employee)
AAM, LLC
Contacted by Petitioner regarding installation inquiry

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision (email alias listed)
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision (email alias listed)
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision (email alias listed)
Miranda Alvarez (Staff)
Transmitted decision

Aaron J Gragg v. Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community

Posted on November 1, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121042-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-11-01
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Aaron J. Gragg	Counsel	—
Respondent	Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Curtis Ekmark, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 12.4(a)
A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 33-1805
CC&R 2.4(a)

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner's Petition, alleging four separate violations of Arizona statutes and CC&Rs (regarding ADR procedures, fraudulent violation assessment, failure to produce documents, and selective enforcement), was denied as the Petitioner failed to prove any of the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803, A.R.S. § 33-1805, or CC&R sections 2.4(a) and 12.4(a).

Key Issues & Findings

Refusal to participate in Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to comply with CC&R Article 12.4(a) regarding ADR. The ALJ found that CC&R Article 12.4(a) excluded proceedings initiated by the Association to enforce architectural, design, and landscape controls from mandatory arbitration.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is denied

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

CC&Rs Section 12.4(a)

Fraudulent assessment of violations

Petitioner alleged Respondent assessed violations without observation. Evidence showed Petitioner’s landscape violations were observed during routine inspections by the Community Standards Administrator.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is denied

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Failure to produce documents

Petitioner requested documents establishing design review requirements and enforcement authority. The ALJ found Petitioner’s requests were actually legal questions posed to Respondent regarding the CC&Rs, not requests for specific documents or records.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is denied

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1805

Selective Enforcement / Similar Treatment

Petitioner alleged selective enforcement because he was required to provide a photograph to prove compliance. The ALJ found Respondent has required photographic verification from other similarly situated non-compliant homeowners since 2010.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is denied

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

CC&R Section 2.4(a)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA enforcement, Landscaping violation, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Selective Enforcement, Document Request

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1803
A.R.S. § 33-1805
A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.A.C. R2-19-119
CC&Rs Section 12.4(a)
CC&R Section 2.4(a)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121042-REL Decision – 921903.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:23 (123.1 KB)

ADR
arbitration
dispute resolution

Case

Docket No: 21F-H2121042-REL
Case Title: Aaron J. Gragg v. Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date: 2021-11-01
Alj Name: Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

discrimination
selective enforcement
equal treatment

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against the HOA?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must prove the HOA violated the law or CC&Rs.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner bears the burden of proving their allegations by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1803, A.R.S. § 33-1805, and CC&Rs sections 2.4(a) and 12.4(a).

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

hearing process
burden of proof
legal standards

Question

Does the HOA have to prove they physically saw a violation?

Short Answer

Yes, but testimony regarding routine inspections is sufficient proof.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

The credible evidence of record established that Petitioner’s landscape violations were observed during routine inspections by the Community Standards Administrator.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1803

Topic Tags

violations
inspections
evidence

Question

Can I sue the HOA for refusing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) if I didn't try to arbitrate?

Short Answer

No. If you skip the arbitration process required by the CC&Rs, you cannot claim the HOA refused ADR.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

CC&R Section 12.4(a)

Topic Tags

ADR
arbitration
dispute resolution

Case

Docket No: 21F-H2121042-REL
Case Title: Aaron J. Gragg v. Anthem Parkside at Merrill Ranch Community Association, Inc.
Decision Date: 2021-11-01
Alj Name: Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Aaron J. Gragg (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Curtis Ekmark (HOA attorney)
CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD DELGADO & WOOD, PLC
Represented Respondent
Michelle Haney (community manager)
Appeared as witness for Respondent

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmittal

Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust v. Haciendas Del Conde

Posted on November 18, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020045-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-11-18
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust	Counsel	—
Respondent	Haciendas Del Conde Association	Counsel	Sharon Briggs, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CCRs Section 21(m)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petition on all issues, concluding that the CCRs contained legally enforceable setback language (Section 21(m)) properly passed in 2017 under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A). The ALJ rejected Petitioner's arguments regarding improper voting procedures, statute of limitations, and selective enforcement.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. The CCRs were deemed valid, and the enforcement action was deemed reasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Challenge to the validity and enforcement of the 10-foot setback requirement regarding the Petitioner's carport and claims of selective enforcement.

Petitioner asserted that the HOA violated CCR 21(m) by improperly adopting the 2017 CCRs and sought resolution on whether the setback language was enforceable, whether forcing Petitioner to move the carport was reasonable, whether selective enforcement was applied, and whether an easement existed. The ALJ concluded the CCRs were valid and enforceable under A.R.S. § 33-1817(A), rejected the selective enforcement claim, and denied the petition.

Orders: The Petition was denied on all issues. Respondent was deemed the prevailing party. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)
A.R.S. § 10-3708
CCRs Section 21(m)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CCR_enforceability, setback_violation, voting_validity, selective_enforcement, carport

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1817
A.R.S. § 10-3708
A.R.S. § 32-2199

Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust v. Haciendas Del Conde

Posted on November 18, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020045-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-11-18
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust	Counsel	—
Respondent	Haciendas Del Conde Association	Counsel	Sharon Briggs, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CCRs Section 21(m)

Outcome Summary

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. The CCRs were deemed valid, and the enforcement action was deemed reasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Challenge to the validity and enforcement of the 10-foot setback requirement regarding the Petitioner's carport and claims of selective enforcement.

Orders: The Petition was denied on all issues. Respondent was deemed the prevailing party. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)
A.R.S. § 10-3708
CCRs Section 21(m)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CCR_enforceability, setback_violation, voting_validity, selective_enforcement, carport

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1817
A.R.S. § 10-3708
A.R.S. § 32-2199

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

20F-H2020045-REL Decision – 837850.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:31:47 (132.2 KB)

Briefing Doc – 20F-H2020045-REL

Administrative Law Judge Decision: Trezza Irrevocable Trust vs. Haciendas Del Conde Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document analyzes the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision in case number 20F-H2020045-REL, a dispute between the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust (Petitioner) and the Haciendas Del Conde Association (HDCA/Respondent). The ALJ denied the Petitioner’s petition on all issues, finding in favor of the HDCA and deeming it the prevailing party.

The core of the dispute was a carport constructed by the Petitioner in August 2019 without prior approval from the HDCA and in violation of a 10-foot property line setback requirement detailed in the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The Petitioner challenged the validity of the CC&Rs, alleged selective enforcement by the HDCA, and argued the setback rule was unreasonable.

The ALJ’s decision rested on several key conclusions:

• The HDCA’s 2017 CC&Rs, including the 10-foot setback rule in Section 21(m), were properly adopted and are legally enforceable. The Petitioner’s challenge to the voting procedure was unfounded, as it incorrectly cited corporate voting law instead of the statute governing planned communities.

• The HOA has the right to enforce rules that are more restrictive than municipal codes, rendering the Pima County code’s zero-foot setback irrelevant.

• There was no evidence of selective enforcement. The HDCA’s denial was based on the substantive setback violation, not the procedural failure to obtain prior approval, and the Petitioner was given an opportunity to cure the issue.

• The Petitioner is solely responsible for any financial burden associated with bringing the carport into compliance, as the situation was created by the failure to seek prior approval before construction.

I. Case Overview

• Case Name: Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust v. Haciendas Del Conde Association

• Case Number: 20F-H2020045-REL

• Forum: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Presiding Judge: Adam D. Stone

• Date of Decision: November 18, 2020

• Parties:

◦ Petitioner: Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust, represented by Trustee Steven Trezza, Esq.

◦ Respondent: Haciendas Del Conde Association (HDCA), represented by Sharon Briggs, Esq.

• Central Issue: The legal enforceability of the HDCA’s CC&Rs, specifically Section 21(m), which prohibits the construction of structures within ten feet of any side or back property line for specified lots. The Petitioner sought relief after the HDCA denied approval for a carport built in violation of this rule.

II. Factual Background

Steven Trezza, trustee for the Petitioner, testified that he has resided at the property for approximately 14 years. In August 2019, he designed and built a carport on the property. Crucially, he admitted to the following:

• He had not read the community’s CC&Rs prior to the HDCA’s denial of his application.

• He failed to obtain prior approval from the HDCA Board for the carport’s construction.

• He failed to obtain a required permit from Pima County.

The HDCA Board President, Brad Johns, testified that he first noticed the carport construction in late August 2019 and placed architectural approval forms on the Petitioner’s door. Johns clarified that the eventual denial was not based on the failure to obtain prior approval but on the substantive violation of the 10-foot setback rule.

On November 14, 2019, the HDCA’s Secretary/Treasurer, Philip Worcester, sent formal correspondence informing the Petitioner of the failure to submit a proposal and providing an additional thirty days to do so before facing penalties.

III. Petitioner’s Core Arguments

The Petitioner, represented by Mr. Trezza, presented several arguments to invalidate the HDCA’s enforcement action:

• Invalidity of the 2017 CC&Rs Vote: Mr. Trezza claimed the 2017 vote that adopted the current CC&Rs was improper.

◦ He argued the ballot was defective under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 10-3708 because it did not provide a place to vote “no.”

◦ He contended that Section 21(m), the setback rule, was not “redlined” in the proposed document sent to homeowners, implying it was not a change and therefore not properly adopted.

• Invalidity of the 1993 Amendment: The language of Section 21(m) originated in a 1993 Amendment. Mr. Trezza argued this amendment was also passed via an invalid vote. He claimed the statute of limitations had not expired on challenging it, as he only became aware of the 1993 Amendment during the course of the present dispute.

• Conflict with Pima County Code: Mr. Trezza testified that the 10-foot setback is incorrect under Pima County code, which he stated requires a zero-foot setback. He argued the HDCA Board had misinterpreted zoning requirements in 1993.

• Selective Enforcement: Mr. Trezza asserted that he was not treated fairly, claiming other HDCA members who had failed to obtain prior approval for projects were later granted it.

• Unreasonable Withholding of Approval: The Petitioner argued that the HDCA’s approval was unreasonably withheld because the carport was not unattractive, did not devalue community property, and did not violate county code.

IV. Respondent’s (HDCA) Position and Testimony

The HDCA countered each of the Petitioner’s claims through legal arguments and witness testimony:

• Validity of the CC&Rs: Ms. Briggs, counsel for the HDCA, argued that the 2017 vote was valid pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-1817, the statute governing planned communities. This statute requires only an “affirmative vote or written consent,” which was obtained. She asserted that the “redlining” argument was irrelevant because the entire CC&Rs document was presented to homeowners for a vote, and they could have rejected it if they disagreed with any provision, changed or not. This rendered the challenge to the 1993 amendment moot.

• Absence of Discrimination:

◦ HDCA President Brad Johns testified that the denial was based solely on the 10-foot setback violation, not the failure to obtain prior approval.

◦ He stated that the Board had successfully worked with other homeowners who failed to seek prior approval, but Mr. Trezza’s case was different because it involved a stand-alone structure rather than an addition.

◦ Both Mr. Johns and Secretary/Treasurer Philip Worcester testified that they had not known or interacted with Mr. Trezza prior to this issue, negating any claim of personal bias.

• Fair Process and Opportunity to Cure: Mr. Worcester testified that he complied with multiple document requests from Mr. Trezza and offered on at least two occasions for Mr. Trezza to accompany him to the association’s storage facility, an offer that was not accepted. The Board provided a 30-day window for the Petitioner to submit a formal proposal to resolve the issue.

V. Administrative Law Judge’s Conclusions of Law and Rationale

The ALJ methodically rejected each of the Petitioner’s arguments and found the HDCA’s position to be supported by law and evidence.

1. The CC&Rs Contain Legally Enforceable Setback Language:

◦ The Judge concluded that the 2017 CC&Rs vote was proper. The Petitioner’s reliance on A.R.S. § 10-3708 (corporate voting) was “unfounded.” The correct and controlling statute is A.R.S. § 33-1817(A) (planned community voting), which only requires an “affirmative vote or written consent.”

◦ The argument that Section 21(m) was not “redlined” was deemed “not persuasive,” as the entire proposed document was provided to members, who voted to accept the CC&Rs as written.

◦ An HOA may require different, and more restrictive, setback requirements than a municipality. Therefore, the Pima County code does not override the CC&Rs.

2. The Petitioner is Bound by the CC&Rs:

◦ The Judge found the argument regarding the 1993 Amendment and the statute of limitations “unpersuasive.” Upon purchasing the property, the Petitioner became bound by the CC&Rs in existence at that time, “whether he read them or not.”

3. No Selective Enforcement Occurred:

◦ Evidence showed that the Board “routinely allowed homeowners to provide a chance to cure their failure to obtain prior approval.”

◦ Testimony from Mr. Johns and Mr. Worcester clearly established that the denial was not due to the lack of prior approval but the substantive setback violation. The Petitioner was offered the same opportunity to cure the problem as others but chose not to.

4. The Cost of Compliance is Reasonable:

◦ The Judge concluded that it is reasonable to compel the Petitioner to comply with the setback requirement, regardless of the cost. The decision states: “it brought the additional expenses upon itself for failure to obtain prior approval.” By not seeking approval beforehand, the Petitioner, not the HDCA, created the financial burden of a remedy.

VI. Final Order and Implications

Based on the foregoing conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge issued the following order on November 18, 2020:

• The Petition filed by the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust is denied on all issues.

• The Respondent, Haciendas Del Conde Association, is deemed the prevailing party.

• No Civil Penalty is found to be appropriate in this matter.

The order is binding on the parties unless a rehearing is requested with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the order.

Study Guide – 20F-H2020045-REL

Study Guide: Trezza Irrevocable Trust v. Haciendas Del Conde Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in case number 20F-H2020045-REL, concerning a dispute between the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust and the Haciendas Del Conde Association. It includes a quiz with an answer key to test factual recall, essay questions to encourage deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the legal decision.

Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 complete sentences based on the provided case document.

1. Who were the primary parties involved in this case, and what were their roles?

2. What specific provision of the community’s governing documents was at the center of the dispute?

3. What structure did the Petitioner build, and what two key approvals were initially neglected?

4. What was the Petitioner’s primary argument for why the 2017 vote on the CCRs was improper?

5. How did the Petitioner challenge the validity of the original 1993 Amendment concerning the setback?

6. What was the Respondent’s reasoning for denying the carport application, separate from the failure to get prior approval?

7. How did the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) distinguish between the two Arizona statutes cited regarding voting procedures?

8. What was the ALJ’s conclusion regarding the Petitioner’s claim of selective enforcement?

9. Why did the ALJ rule that it was reasonable to force the Petitioner to bear the cost of moving the carport?

10. What was the final order issued by the Administrative Law Judge in this matter?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioner was the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust, represented by Trustee Steven Trezza, Esq. The Respondent was the Haciendas Del Conde Association (HDCA), a Homeowners Association represented by Sharon Briggs, Esq.

2. The dispute centered on the Haciendas Del Conde Association’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCRs), specifically Section 21(m). This section mandates a ten-foot setback from any side or back property line for structures on specific lots.

3. The Petitioner, Mr. Trezza, designed and built a carport in August 2019. He failed to obtain prior approval from the HOA’s Board and also failed to obtain a required permit from Pima County.

4. The Petitioner argued that the ballot used for the 2017 vote was defective under A.R.S. § 10-3708 because it did not provide an option to vote “no.” He contended this made the entire vote improper and the resulting CCRs invalid.

5. The Petitioner argued that the 1993 Amendment, which first introduced the 10-foot setback, was itself based on an invalid vote. He also argued that because this language was not “redlined” as a change in the 2017 CCRs, homeowners were not properly notified of its adoption.

6. Brad Johns, President of the HDCA, testified that the denial was not due to the lack of prior approval but specifically because the carport violated the 10-foot setback requirement outlined in Section 21(m) of the CCRs.

7. The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner’s reliance on A.R.S. § 10-3708 was unfounded because it applies to corporation voting. The judge determined that A.R.S. § 33-1817(A), which governs planned community voting and only requires an “affirmative vote or written consent,” was the controlling statute.

8. The ALJ concluded there was no selective enforcement. Evidence showed that the Board routinely worked with other homeowners who failed to get prior approval, and that Mr. Trezza was not discriminated against but was given an opportunity to cure the problem.

9. The ALJ reasoned that by failing to seek prior approval before construction, the Petitioner, not the HDCA, created the expenses required to remedy the situation. Therefore, it was reasonable to make the Petitioner comply with the CCRs, regardless of the cost.

10. The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the Petition be denied on all issues. The judge further ordered that the Respondent (Haciendas Del Conde Association) be deemed the prevailing party in the matter.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for longer, more analytical responses. Formulate an argument using only the evidence and legal reasoning presented in the case document.

1. Analyze the Petitioner’s arguments regarding the invalidity of the 1993 Amendment and the 2017 CCRs. Why did the Administrative Law Judge find these arguments, including the “redlining” and statute of limitations claims, to be unpersuasive?

2. Discuss the concept of “selective enforcement” as an affirmative defense in this case. What evidence did the Petitioner and Respondent present on this issue, and how did the judge ultimately rule?

3. Examine the legal distinction made between A.R.S. § 10-3708 and A.R.S. § 33-1817(A). Explain how this distinction was critical to the judge’s conclusion about the validity of the 2017 CCRs and the enforceability of Section 21(m).

4. Evaluate the significance of the Petitioner’s failure to obtain prior Board and Pima County approval for the carport. How did this action impact the judge’s ruling, particularly concerning the reasonableness of the enforcement costs and the allegation of unfair treatment?

5. Compare and contrast the testimony presented by the Petitioner’s side (Steven Trezza, Phil Rosenberg) with the testimony from the Respondent’s side (Brad Johns, Philip Worcester). How did their differing accounts shape the central issues of the hearing?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An official who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, and issues decisions, in this case, for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Affirmative Defense

A set of facts or legal arguments presented by the respondent that, if proven, can defeat or mitigate the legal consequences of the petitioner’s claim. In this case, “selective enforcement” was an affirmative defense.

A.R.S.

Abbreviation for Arizona Revised Statutes, which are the codified laws of the state of Arizona.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are legally binding rules and regulations that govern a planned community or subdivision, which property owners agree to abide by upon purchasing property.

Easement

A legal right to use another person’s land for a specific purpose. The Petitioner unsuccessfully argued for an easement for the carport under Section 33 of the CCRs.

HOA (Homeowners Association)

An organization in a planned community that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. The Haciendas Del Conde Association is the HOA in this case.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition initiating a legal action. In this case, it was the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in civil cases, meaning the evidence shows that a contention is more likely true than not. The Petitioner bore this burden to prove their claims.

Redlined

A method of marking a document to show additions, deletions, or changes, typically by underlining new text and striking through deleted text. The Petitioner argued a lack of redlining was misleading.

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, it was the Haciendas Del Conde Association.

Setback

The minimum required distance that a building or other structure must be located from a property line, street, or other feature. The dispute centered on a 10-foot setback requirement.

Statute of Limitations

A law that sets the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. The Petitioner argued the statute of limitations had not run for challenging the 1993 Amendment.

Trustee

An individual or entity that holds and administers property or assets for the benefit of a third party. Steven Trezza, Esq. appeared as Trustee for the Petitioner.

Variance

An officially granted exception to zoning ordinances or CCRs. The Petitioner unsuccessfully sought a variance for the carport.

Blog Post – 20F-H2020045-REL

📔

20F-H2020045-REL

1 source

The provided text is an Administrative Law Judge Decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings concerning a dispute between the Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust (Petitioner) and the Haciendas Del Conde Association (Respondent). This Homeowners Association (HOA) Dispute arose because the Petitioner constructed a carport without prior approval, violating the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR’s), specifically a ten-foot setback requirement in Section 21(m). The Petitioner argued that the setback language was unenforceable due to flawed voting procedures in both 1993 and 2017 when the CCR’s were adopted, and also claimed selective enforcement. The Administrative Law Judge ultimately found that the CCR’s were legally enforceable and properly adopted, concluding that the Petitioner must comply with the setback rule, and denied all issues raised in the petition.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Stephen Trezza (Trustee)
Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust
Appeared for Petitioner; Testified on behalf of Petitioner
Philip Rosenberg (witness)
Testified for Petitioner

Respondent Side

Sharon Briggs (HOA attorney)
Haciendas Del Conde Association
Brad Johns (board member)
Haciendas Del Conde Association
President of HDCA; Testified for Respondent
Philip Worcester (board member)
Haciendas Del Conde Association
Secretary/Treasurer of HDCA; Testified for Respondent

Neutral Parties

Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
OAH
Judy Lowe (Commissioner)
ADRE
Order transmitted electronically to

Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust v. Haciendas Del Conde

Posted on November 18, 2020 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	20F-H2020045-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2020-11-18
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$0.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Shannon Lee Trezza Irrevocable Trust	Counsel	—
Respondent	Haciendas Del Conde Association	Counsel	Sharon Briggs, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CCRs Section 21(m)

Outcome Summary

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. The CCRs were deemed valid, and the enforcement action was deemed reasonable.

Key Issues & Findings

Challenge to the validity and enforcement of the 10-foot setback requirement regarding the Petitioner's carport and claims of selective enforcement.

Orders: The Petition was denied on all issues. Respondent was deemed the prevailing party. No Civil Penalty was found appropriate.

Filing fee: $0.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
A.R.S. § 33-1817(A)
A.R.S. § 10-3708
CCRs Section 21(m)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CCR_enforceability, setback_violation, voting_validity, selective_enforcement, carport

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1817
A.R.S. § 10-3708
A.R.S. § 32-2199

Decision Documents

20F-H2020045-REL-RHG Decision – 892670.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:26:53 (47.7 KB)